Biologist Forced Out of Academia for Saying Male and Female are not Social Constructs
“Male and female are not social constructs, but are real biological categories that do not fall on a spectrum.”
The progressive agenda now overrules science, and if you refuse to accept this, you will be punished.
The College Fix reports:
Evolutionary biologist forced out of academia for insisting male and female are not social constructs
When evolutionary biologist Colin Wright has debated Christian conservatives on the topic of creationism or intelligent design, he said they would frequently tell him he is “wrong or stupid, but my critics never called me a bigot.”
Not so when it comes to some on the academic left, who Wright argues have effectively derailed his career in academia by targeting him with cancel culture, mob-like tactics to potential employers who might consider him for tenure-track.
Why? Because he refuses to stop saying this publicly: “Male and female are not social constructs, but are real biological categories that do not fall on a spectrum.”
Wright spells out his story in a July 30 piece for Quillette titled “Think Cancel Culture Doesn’t Exist? My Own ‘Lived Experience’ Says Otherwise.”
Wright, who graduated with a PhD in evolutionary biology from UC Santa Barbara in 2018 and most recently worked in a postdoctoral position at Penn State, detailed how his critics who are furious he will not agree biological sex exists on a continuous “spectrum” effectively forced him out of his plans to become a professor of biology.
The outspoken evolutionary biologist explains in his piece that he really did try to shut up about his views, knowing they could derail his career plans.
But time and again the ridiculous dogma from the far-left that insists in the “pseudoscience … that sex differences in human personality, preferences, and behavior are entirely the result of socialization” drew him out of the shadows.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Good gosh!
I cannot believe enough biologists, scientists, medical doctors are not standing up to this trans nonsense!
Cowards!
Biologists are no different than anyone else on the left–there was recently a huge controversy where the editor of some scientific journal was being harassed because he called some worm commonly studied a name–I think he said it was overstudied or something. The rest of the woke academic idiots came out in full force to demand his resignation. These academic tantrums are something to behold.
May he remain brave against the idiot Left, and find plenty of support among others whom science-deniers try to crush.
And may he emerge from the senseless fray to craft a fine career based on a widely respected body of work.
Those academics on the left like to point to antiscience beliefs that a small number of conservatives hold. But I’ve also kept a list of antiscience beliefs that are demanded by the left-leaning crowd:
Scientific truth varies according to a person’s identity and culture.
GMO foods are evil and dangerous.
Gluten, sugar, preservatives, etc are evil and dangerous.
Foods labeled “organic” and “natural” are more healthful.
Nuclear power is evil and dangerous.
“Chemicals,” pesticides, and plastics are evil and dangerous.
Hydropower is evil and not renewable.
Hurricanes and tornados confirm global warming.
There are no differences in races or sexes.
Sexes are not determined by chromosomes, but are merely a social construct.
There are many sexes, and they fall on a spectrum from male to female to other.
Evolutionary psychology is evil and wrong.
There is some evidence that sugar may really be bad for you. In a haystack that size there’s bound to be the occasional needle.
21st century Lysenkoism. Same old Marxism.
Nice analogy, I agree.
It’s the Marxism-justifying vitality of the essentials at stake — higher, more efficient crop yields in the Soviet case; a permissive, supportive underlying metaphysic, bypassing binary-based sexuality to validate the concept of biologically unrecognized, as opposed to social-scientifically warranted gender fluidity — that permits such good comparison, in my view.
That’s to say, much more simply, and maybe elegantly, garbage in, garbage out.
Equalities in nature no one ever thought existed suddenly do, according to these mandatory theorists, especially and foremost, it seems, this primer in its access to all knowledge — in the faculty’s view, the means to power:
Scientific rigor = ideological rigidity
Makes “sense” when you think about the temper of the times: science no longer means knowledge for the sake of knowledge alone*; and the right side of the equation constructs the stilts to prop up the false predicate nominative of ideological rigidity, relative to scientific rigor, and the pretense that it is neither grammatically/semantically nor actually false, but true.
IOW, these academic tyrants, posing as thought developers and human leaders for a well-functioning society, are frauds — until that term is corrupted.
Its Orwell’s frightful vision on steroids, but it’s merely a vignette, not necessarily a general vista.
I knew we were in the wake of this metaphysical dynamic when I first heard the term “settled science” in climate studies.
It’s all related in some manner, I think, to Nietzsche’s will to power, and, if so, according to him, it’s unavoidably, implicitly human. It must be harnessed for society’s good, he insisted, not the evil the present biologist is experiencing in his properly titled field. It’s his hegemonic critics and foes that are trespassing, not he on their fake and sinister, antihuman turf, I would likely surmise.
Now, at first glance, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with holding the mind-body beliefs they do. It becomes problematic, as his case clearly shows, when it conflates science with dogma, if the science about their slice of metaphysics is wanting — not yet, if it could ever be, up to snuff. Freud fell into the same, unhappy paradox with his sexuality primer that he ended up imposing on his disciples, unintentionally generating offshoots of the original psychoanalysis field.
Until these human endeavors, science and ideology, are permanently conflated, in definition and reality, there is hope for human freedom to endure.
The biologist’s case shows, unfortunately, that either the time all such hope would be lost is drawing near, or that we’re already through that looking glass, in which case such hope is already lost.
The remedial first step, in any case and MHO, might be this and is twofold: to recognize the science-and-ideology conflation’s aberrant nature and to assess its presumed distribution and deep permeation into the natural sciences.
A fundamental question, then, would seem to be in good order: Is the extent to which the natural and social sciences overlap circumscribed enough to allow the one to be scrutinized by the other, and vice versa, for each one’s scientific and ethical — NB: not ideological — integrity?
Social science, as the grammar indicates, is a science first and foremost, and so its compass is ethical, self-regulating; in the end, its submits its aims and activities to elected policymakers and not unhinged ideological avatars. Let a trained, policy-neutral philosopher, agreeably acceptable to all legitimate stakeholders, investigate and assess the social science’s ideology in cooperation with the natural science community, not the social science community alone, if all of science is to maintain its integrity.
Finally, although I’m not a practicing scientist, I can still feel and understand — on the purely intellectual plane, if and only if my thoughts are sensible, coherent and, hopefully, cogent — the core issues of this problem that are important to a free and well-functioning society.
______________________
* If this aberrant faculty’s fundamental agenda is Marxist/Maoist/Globalist, it would be facile for its members, a most simplified philosophy, to find undisciplined, disordered science to be impossibly pure, necessarily servile, and, insofar as these totalitarians’ reason to exist is concerned, perversely subservient to its once-capitalist masters and, of course, exploiters.
The properly disciplining and ordering faculty, which — how lucky for all! — they happen to be, functions in this capacity to substitute the totalistic, ideology-led state for the capitalist power regime to rule governance-needing science. Thus, science now has a new and proper master, serving the general will of the people exclusively through its political and other subsidiary institutions, and no longer the capitalist exploiters foremost, the operations theory here runs.
It is also an ex-communicable crime in academia to say that sexuality IS socially constructed and hence mutable rather than inherent and immutable.